True Life of Interracial Relationships: What Are People Saying

It has now been 44 years since the Loving vs. Virginia landmark case that removed all race based legal restrictions on marriages and finally gave people the opportunity to marry outside of their race. Now that it is legally sanctioned to permit interracial marriages, everyone accepts and respects interracial relationships, right? Not necessarily. And since we’re living in a time long after this case was relevant, it is not an issue of society today, right? Completely false. Many people still view interracial couples as immoral. In fact, hate crimes towards miscegenation proves to be an active and blatant form of racism. Though I do agree that times have certainly changed over the years and that not everyone will ratify with interracial relationships, it is still important to consider the different attitudes surrounding it when talking about race.

MTV’s “True Life: I’m in an Interracial Relationship” documentary aired in 2004 and showed us the point of view of three different interracial couples who all shared similar experiences. One couple in particular involves a black woman, Candace, and a white man, Josh, who considers himself culturally black. Candace and Josh are commonly stereotyped, questioned, and racially discriminated against by the public. Candace is frequently questioned why is she with a white man instead of a black one, and Josh is a target for racial slurs and jealous attitudes. Fortunate for them, their families openly accept their relationship and realize that race isn’t the issue. Josh proposes to Candace in front of her entire family and she accepts his hand in marriage despite the daily racist encounters they've dealt with. 

This episode of True Life aired on MTV 7 years ago from today and 20 years after the Loving v. Virginia Case. I’d gladly say that strong, hateful attitudes against interracial relationships aren’t the same today and that we are going in a forward direction to a more accepting and diverse society. However, the topic of interracial relationship remains controversial as some people are opposed and have negative views of it and not enough people consider this issue as a problem for resolution. Being aware of the issues of interracial relationships, such as those described in the life of Candace and Josh, is helpful in changing the traditional and binary views of society and creating greater social acceptance of all races. Think about 2011. What are people negatively saying about interracial couples today and what do they mean?

“White girls are easy”- referring to why black men date white women

“She’s a white man’s whore”- referring to black women who date white men

“It must because of his money”-economic justification for dating outside one’s race. 

“Don’t cheat yourself. Treat yourself”-Cheating yourself would be dating someone of a different race. Treating your self would be staying within the boundaries of your own race.

“I’d never day a ____ girl/boy”-for various reasons

“Traitor”-being disloyal to your race

What do you think?

-Brianna Allen

Affirmative Action for Poor Whites??

We all know there are many public figures that have spoken out for or against affirmative action, there are organizations trying to bring an end to affirmative action, and there are organizations trying to maintain it and reinstitute it where necessary.  Thinking about all this, I thought, what about us, the students? We are a majority group affected by affirmative action.  So what are the students thoughts on the programs that give preferential treatment to certain groups based on race, national origin and gender.  I decided to interview students at the University of Michigan to find out their perspectives on the issue.  What I found over and over was that many students alluded to one thing: affirmative action should be transformed into a policy used to resolve economic issues rather than racial ones.  In other words, many seem to believe that affirmative action based on socio-economic status is the race-neutral alternative that we should be considering.  So I questioned, is this realistic?

Affirmative action was established to take “positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  We must examine this idea, to consider whether the notion of affirmative action based on economic standing would abide by the same principles that affirmative action based on race, gender and national origin does.  Many argue that affirmative action gives advantages to certain people who are not in need, simply based on their race or origin, and denies poor whites any assistance despite their economic disadvantage.

Phil is a history major at the University of Michigan who identifies as white and hispanic.  He states, “I believe that affirmative action should be replaced by affirmative action policies and legislation aimed at creating equal opportunity, based NOT on race but on income. I believe that this will help alleviate racial tension in society, lead to a more integrated society and stop the devaluation of minority achievement. Moreover, affirmative action based on poverty, rather than race, will still in reality give help to minorities in need and thus in many ways can be seen as having a similar effect to affirmative action.”  According to Phil’s argument, because minorities find themselves at an economic disadvantage, creating a policy of affirmative action that would provide aid or advantage based on income rather than race, would still help minorities but would also help poor whites, and would remove the stigma of the minority student who is a “product of affirmative action.”

So could this really work? Could the idea of giving affirmative action advantages based on income rather than race still achieve the goals that affirmative action looks to do?  Well in theory, the minorities who are at an economic disadvantage would still receive the benefits needed to help them rise in society.  However, unlike affirmative action as is now, this would also greatly benefit poor whites, who although part of the majority group still suffer the strife of lack of opportunity.

Ellen a student at the University of Michigan who identifies as white says, “the rights of each individual are more important than the rights of groups, not every minority experiences disadvantages, and many whites do.  Therefore, ignoring the struggles of certain white individuals, and granting all minorities advantages based on their race, gender, or national origin does not uphold equal rights for all.  I understand that many minorities are at a disadvantage, but what about poor whites, they do not fit the cap of a race desirable to increase diversity, nor do they reap the benefits of wealth and opportunity.  So what about them?”

It’s an interesting idea, the elimination of a race divide.  What would this mean about the divide of class?  If we were to give individuals preference based on income, would that fix the race divide, but as a result create a more fragmented America segregated by class?

How would grouping people based on economic standing affect how we look at race, would race become irrelevant as wealth become a more prominent factor by which people were viewed?

In theory, it does indeed sound like a great idea.  But that would only be true if we lived in a racial democracy where there was no racism.  If we eliminated affirmative action based on race, origin or gender, and instead implemented affirmative action based on income, it could hurt minorities.  The reason for this is that affirmative action helps assure that minorities are given equal opportunity and are not discriminated against due to society’s prejudices about race.  Implementing an affirmative action policy based on income, would assure minorities in need were considered.  When compared to their equivalent white counterparts, however, we could not ensure that unconscious biases would not come in to play and result in hurting the opportunities of minorities in need.

Anne a student at the University of Michigan who identifies as white says, “affirmative action based on income would not work.  We like to think we are past racism but we are not.  Our country’s history of racism makes this idea implausible, minorities are looked over everyday and looked down upon and affirmative action is the only thing assuring that, legally, they are giving the opportunities they deserve.  Poor whites do not suffer these stigmas, and if a policy such as this were implemented, minority representation would decrease and the representation of the white majority, rich or poor, would increase”

So is the idea of affirmative action based on income rather than race plausible?  I do not think that is the case, not yet.  I believe that our country is making strides towards diminishing racism, but not yet removing it.  Affirmative action based on income would only work if there were not biases, conscious or unconscious that could hurt minorities when being compared to their equivalent white counterparts.  Maybe someday we will have reached an America that we can see as non racist and without prejudice, if that happens, then we can say everyone is equal and therefore equally disadvantaged.

Yanet Zepeda

The Real Housewives of Atlanta

Another popular reality show on television today is The Real housewives of Atlanta. This series documents the lives of 6 women living in Atlanta, Georgia and their lives as wives, mothers, and for some businesswomen. Five of the women are African American and one is Caucasian and each episode is filled with drama, but in some ways it shows black women in less stereotypical roles. All of the women that are apart of the show are very wealthy and all of them have obtained some of their wealth by working. The show is centered on their conflicts but I think it is good to see black women within the media who are doing well for themselves. When it comes to their financial stability they are actually connoting more positive notions of black women and promoting the idea that hard work pays off. I believe this doesn’t take away from them being viewed as “authentic” because their behaviors on the show are at the forefront.

            One of the cast members is Kandi Burruss. She is a single mother and former singer of the popular group Xscape. She has also produced many hit songs for numerous artists, she has her own internet show called “Kandi Koated Nights”, she owns her own boutique, and she has a line of sex toys. She is one that displays the notion of hard working black woman because she is doing numerous things and providing for her family. There are also some aspects of her that can perpetuate the idea of “authenticity” among black women. Her web series is sexually oriented and the fact that she produced a line of sex toys promotes the stereotype that black women are hyper sexualized and that they thrive off being sex objects. In my opinion, her web serious is done in an entertaining and tasteful fashion where real life people are able to tell their stories to the public, but people may perceive it as something different.

            NeNe Leakes is one of the most popular cast members on the show because she is the most out-spoken. She is a soon to be divorced mother of two and she is also making a living by working. Since being apart of the show she has made numerous appearances on talk shows and she was also involved with the latest season of The Celebrity Apprentice. Her authenticity as a black woman seems to be at the forefront because she is the center of most of the drama on the show. She always makes her opinion know and she is very loud and confrontational. This perpetuates the notion that black women are angry and loud and these situations are usually what the producers decide to air on television. Viewers are inadvertently forming their views on society from the media.

            This show is Bravo networks highest rated realty television show. As the seasons go on the producers need new material to capture so the audience will keep coming back for more. The producers have changed the cast a few times since the first season to alter the scenery and add more drama. Within every season and every episode something new comes about that adds to the show as a whole. The entire cast is making a very decent living as a cast member and for them to keep it going they have to provide the audience with entertainment. This may not actually be “reality” but it is produced in a way that can connote their regular lives living in Atlanta, which is a life filled with glamour and drama and people perceive it as such. 

-Danielle Hicks 

BET's College Hill

One of the most popular reality shows on BET was College Hill Virgin Islands. This drama filled show follows the lives of 8 students attending a historically black college for a semester all while living in the same house. During this season, the cast consisted of four men and four women and all of them were black with some from America and some from the Virgin Islands. This season caused a tremendous uproar on the Virgin Islands because many people were dismayed by how the students were portrayed and how this portrayal perpetuated the stereotypes of blacks. The show’s focus was to entertain the audience so there would be high ratings and that is exactly what happened, but it was at the cost of the reputation of BET and the cast. Drama and conflict are what reality shows thrive off of and this season was very eventful to say the least.

            In the first episode the cast decides to drink heavily, ask sexual questions, and play Truth or Dare to get to know one another. Many of them become heavily intoxicated and with this came rowdy behavior; it then ended with one of the roommates passing out on the bathroom floor. Within this first episode the stereotypes of blacks are at the forefront. They are perceived to be hyper-sexualized and they seem to be more focused on drinking than focusing on their schoolwork, which can bring about the idea that they are less intelligent and lazy in comparison to whites. Since authenticity is based on how well one submits to these stereotypes it shows this cast to be very “authentic”. Most of their actions conform to what some believe as being black.

            During episode 8 there was a violent eruption when two roommates had a fight about a number of issues that had built up over time. The main reason the physical altercation started was because one roommate said something very disrespectful about the Virgin Islands, the place that one roommate calls home. Instead of talking out their issues they both decide to internalize their anger for one another until it eventually boiled over. Their violent acts goes with the concept of performativity. Both of these roommates are performing a type of person that is aggressive in behavior and because they are both black they are perpetuating this stereotype for the audience. Even though it is supposed to be reality they are just performing for their intended viewers.

            When this season aired in 2007, it was extremely popular and as more and more people watch, more and more people are forming their own opinions about the cast and this television station. Some people within the black community compared this season to a modern day minstrel show in which the cast is just putting on a show but with negative connotations for the black community.  It seems that it is a constant struggle to disapprove these stereotypical thoughts about race and when reality television shows perpetuate these idea it hinders the representations of minorities.

            The producers of this television show have defined blackness to make the cast seem as authentic as possible. The television network is catering to wide audience with a focus toward entertaining blacks and with this they have the final decision when it comes to what is going to be aired and what is not. The cast does not have a say in the end product and it is as if they are suppressing their true selves and given a new identity by the television network and the viewers.

-Danielle Hicks 

Sneaking off to the O.C.?

Being the year 2011, you’ve witnessed interracial relationships firsthand either in the media or in your real life experiences whether you agree with it or not. But, have you ever considered yourself dating someone of a different race? What about marrying and vowing to spend the rest of your life with them? The movie “Something New” (2006) features a beautiful, successful black woman, Kenya McQueen, who unwillingly catches interest in her landscaper, Brian Kelly—a white man who, despite societal expectations, falls in love with her. This romantic comedy film addresses the uneasiness of being or wanting to be in an interracial relationship for both characters. While Kenya experienced disapproval from her parents, jokes from her friends, and doubts about her relationship, Brian experienced humiliation from black people and what it was somewhat like to be a minority in their presence. Though it proves various reluctances of getting involved in an interracial relationship given the views of society, family, friends, and even those of your own race, it also suggests why these views shouldn’t matter when it comes to personal love.

“Let Go and Let Flow”

Kenya McQueen is introduced as a beautiful, intelligent, executive and newly homeowner. The only thing that she thinks she needs in her life is her IBM, or ideal black man. Kenya closed mindedly knows exactly who she’s looking for—someone who is tall, handsome, has good teeth, successful, and obviously black. She continuously and desperately looks for the “one” but doesn’t even consider white men because they automatically do not meet her criterion. She justifies this by saying, “It’s not a prejudice, it’s a preference.” In fact, Kenya represents many black women who feel as if being with a white man would be inadequate or ludicrous. As her friends suggested, Kenya had to learn to let go and let flow, meaning to loosen her limitations, open up, and let nature take its course.  Though it took some time for her to realize it, the one for her wasn’t the black man of her dreams, but was the white man right outside her backyard who was able to weaken her tough barriers. 

“Are you sneaking off to the O.C?

Things with Kenya’s new beau Brian seemingly go well, until family comes into the picture.  After receiving news of Kenya’ s situation, her curious brother questioned her decisions. He asked, “Are you sneaking off to the O.C.? Are you skiing the slopes? Are you sleeping with the enemy?” In other words, is Kenya betraying her black culture by dating a white man? This is an example of black solidarity, which is one of the arguments to why blacks and whites intermarry less than any other race. Randall Kennedy, who advocates for interracial marriages, says that black solidarity is when “blacks who marry whites are viewed with skepticism for internalizing a value system that favors whiteness.” Though it is not fair, Kenya is viewed as being disloyal by dating someone who is white. Furthermore, Kenya’s friends and family do not accept her white boyfriend right away.

“You don’t have to marry him”

After feeling the pressure of actually falling in love with someone of a different race, Kenya receives assurance from her friends who tell her, “You don’t have to marry him.” Does this mean that Brian is acceptable for Kenya to date and have a good time with but not for marriage? What would marriage further imply? Many people may find it easy to date interracially, but will draw the line at marriage because it involves more than just having fun. It involves being accepted into each other’s families, having mixed race children, creating their own family, and forever finding confidence with their relationship when the rest of society struggles to understand or respect it.  

After many ups and downs, doubts and confusion, Kenya was certain that Brian was the man for her. Though he didn’t have her same skin color, her same career, or even all of her family’s approval, they made a special connection that they couldn’t have with someone of the same race. With Brian, Kenya found someone who appreciated her natural beauty, who challenged her creativity, and who loved her for the person she was. Race was not an issue of their relationship as they found themselves comfortable with each other. 

Could you ever imagine yourself in Kenya’s shoes? If you have any apprehension towards dating someone of a different race, perhaps this movie could open your eyes to something new.

-Brianna Allen

Through My Brown Eyes

“Mom when will I turn white?”

‘”What do you mean honey, you’re black”

“But all of the people on the TV are white”

“Well you’re black and will always be black.”

            This conversation was had between my mother and I when I was about five years old.  I could not fathom why everyone on the television screen was white and I was black. I thought that as humans we started off black and gradually changed colors and eventually became white. I knew at the age of five that to be white was something to be desired, that something special came with the privilege of being white. At the age of five I had already realized that there was something wrong with being black and had started to develop self-esteem issues. My mom has told me many times about this conversation and how I wanted to white. She said I would only pick up the white Barbie dolls in the store and only associates with things that portrayed white America. Many people may say that it was my parents’ fault for not informing me about the history and cultures of my race, however I do not blame them. I believe that they felt that by being raised in an African American household and being African American myself I would absorb our culture by osmosis and therefore never took the time to teach me.

            I cannot say that I am not embarrassed for my beliefs and the things I said, but who isn’t when it comes to their childhood. However, this made me realize how salient race is in America. People cannot say that racism does not exist. The fact that a five year old girl believes that something is wrong with her because of the color of her skin is an issue that needs to be discussed. Children are growing up with an internal hatred of themselves and a desire to change themselves. The sad part is that no one has blatantly told these children that they are inferior. They have picked up these ideologies from the media and have internalized them. Being able to see people on television that look like you is a form of white privilege that affects minorities throughout their lifetime. They do not have the luxury of seeing people on the television that look like them, and when they do they are portrayed as ignorant, stereotypical, or the token minority. I remember when my little sister was younger she stated that no one likes the black Barbie because she is ugly and because she does not look like us. The media has shown children that if you are not white, or of some lighter complexion you are not pretty.

    A couple of weeks ago I was watching the Victoria Secret Fashion show and while watching it, I realized that I had only seen one African American model, and she was of a light complexion. I was shocked because I would hope that in 2011 we would have more people of color in the media, and of more pronounced color. I Googled a picture of her and found that in reality she is not that light. Society is perpetuating the belief that to be of lighter skin complexion, or in its most extreme forms to be white are the best way to be. As a friend once told me, if you are not white, you need to look and act as white as possible in order to succeed. There were also other minorities in the fashion show, most of them of Hispanic descent. However, looking at them on the television, one would not know this. I also had to research their ethnic backgrounds. I began to feel inferior once again while watching this. I thought, none of them look like me, and if that is the standard of beauty I must be the ugliest person in the world. I realized that I am still struggling with the issues of my internalized racism and oppression. While walking on the campus of the University of Michigan, I am definitely out of my comfort zone and deal with these issues daily. I along with many other minorities carry the burden of internalized racism and oppression with us like a coat that we cannot take off. The constant carrying of this burden imbeds itself in the minds, hearts, and souls of minorities and they begin to feel as if it is them against the world. They feel that they need to prove the world wrong.

            “Oh God, I am the only black person in my group. Will they talk to me or ignore me? Will they dismiss my ideas? Will I have to fight to get a word in edgewise and make my voice be heard?” These are all the questions that run through my head on a daily basis. Growing up in an African American suburb and going to predominantly black schools allowed me the comfort of knowing that I would never be judged by the color of my skin.  However, college is different. There has been many times where I have been the only black person in a room and have realized that I have to show these people what a real black person is like, because I may be the only black person they ever interact with. When I heard about stereotype threat this resonated with me because I realized that I constantly fall prey to it. I feel like I have my whole race on my back and that I have to prove to the world that we are not the degenerates that they made us out to be. We once discussed in lecture about how minorities do not have the luxury to be regarded as an individuals and how this is a form of white privilege. A friend and I were discussing this and we agreed that as a minority and as African Americans more specifically we carry the entire race on our back. We are fighting for people we do not know halfway across the country and for people who have not even been born yet. However, this has always been the way of our people. The civil rights leaders fought for me so that I could fight for the ones after me. Am I still struggling with my issues with internalized racism and oppression and my self-esteem issues, yes, however, everyday I become closer to realizing that it’s better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for who you are not.


-Brandie Smith

The Bluest Eye

Toni Morrison is an award-winning author who has written books about the lives of African Americans for over thirty years. In 1993, she was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. Her first novel, which was published is 1970, was entitle The Bluest Eye. Although not popular when first published it has grown in favor since then. While reading this novel I became engaged in the message she portrays about how children are subjected to ideas about beauty and how society only reinforces these stereotypes. 

The Bluest Eye is about an 11-year-old African American girl named Pecola Breedlove who is very dark skinned. Throughout the novel she longs to be blond haired and blue eyed. Her family and the town she lives in only reinforces these stereotypes and eventually causes her to have a mental breakdown. While reading the forward of the novel Toni Morrison states that she was inspired to write this novel because a friend of hers wanted to be blond haired and blue eyed also. She states “The assertion of racial beauty was not a reaction to the self-mocking, humorous critique, of racial/cultural foibles common in all groups, but against the damaging internalization of assumptions of immutable inferiority originating in an outside gaze.” (p.xi) This quote is very powerful. Here she illustrates that her friend had internalized the stereotype that African Americans are not beautiful and was fighting against the world’s standards of beauty. I found this intriguing because it is based on a real situation. This shows how prevalent internalizing racism and oppression is in minorities’ lives. Had this been a completely fictional story, it would have had just as much prevalence as it does, however, the fact that Morrison used a little girl’s actual desire and wrote the book, shows that these situations do exist. It also shows that children begin to interpret and internalize this racism and oppression at a very young age.

The story is told from multiple points of view, however the main point of view is from a 9 years old girl. Her name is Claudia MacTeer and she is the antithesis of Pecola. She fights against the belief to be black means that you are not attractive and does not feel that to be blond haired and blue-eyed means that you are beautiful. Her innocence is revealed as well as her maturity. She is innocent in the fact that she has not realized the internalized racism that plagues the black community and mature in the fact that she has realized that there is no one true standard of beauty.  In one part of the novel She states that the world believes that being white is the ultimate form of beauty and that she could not understand it and that she could not accept it. She describes a situation where for Christmas her parents brought her a white baby doll and how she felt toward it. She says, “Adults, older girls, shops, magazines, newspapers, window signs, - all the world had agreed that a blue-eyed, yellow haired, pinked skinned doll was what every girl child treasured…I could not love it.” (p. 20-21) She goes on to say that eventually life taught her that this is what beauty means and therefore she conformed her views. She calls it an “adjustment without improvement. ”

Throughout the novel we learn the experiences of Pecola Breedlove through the interactions with her family and with the people of her town.  Toni Morrison reveals that internalized racism and oppression runs deeper than in this one child. Her family walks around with the notion that they are ugly and that is all they every will be. Claudia states that they conduct themselves as if some higher being has told them that they are inferior and they have accepted that claim without question. This shows that she cannot get sympathy or compassion from her family because they are all in the same situation.  The town she lives in is predominantly African American, and throughout the novel one is shown how they view beauty. Many of the children and the teachers at her school prefer the girl who is of a lighter complexion, and whenever they describe someone of a darker skin color, especially Pecola, they always talk about how ugly and black they are, only furthering her notion that being black equates to being ugly.  Morrison shows that internalizing racism and oppression does not only affect one person of the community, but it affects the entire race as a whole and that as a community we pass these internalizations on to the next generation. 

At the end of the novel Pecola is finally “granted her blue eyes”. A medicine man gives her blue eyes in order to give her happiness. This causes Pecola to have a mental breakdown and she begins talking to herself. This is ironic because she was not happy without blue eyes, and now that she has them, or thinks that she has them, she has become worse. Claudia states at the end of the novel that Pecola wanders though the garbage at the edge of town talking to herself and how she was the victim that allowed the rest of the town to feel beautiful.  She states at the end of the novel that, “…among all the waste and beauty of the world- which she herself was. All of our waste which we dumped on her and which she absorbed.” (p. 205) Claudia also comments on how the soil in which Pecola was given to grow in was poor and how she never had a chance, “This soil is bad for certain kinds of flowers. Certain seeds it will not nurture, certain fruit it will not bear, and when the land kills of its own volition, we acquiesce and say the victim had no right to live.” (p. 206)

This novel was very profound. Toni Morrison portrayed the struggles of internalized racism, not only from one individual’s viewpoint, but also from multiple individual’s perspectives. She showed us how this affects the entire community and how it will continue to affect the lives of minorities.  I feel that this book allowed people to realize that in order to stop this cycle we must first begin with ourselves in the hopes that we will change the future generations.


-Brandie Smith

Affirmative Action: A Personal Narrative

Affirmative action is a very controversial topic in America today.  As a Hispanic woman in engineering I for a long time struggled with choosing my stance on affirmative action.  I know that affirmative action makes my minority status and sex an advantage in my field, but as a strong believer in a meritocracy, I believed the idea of embracing a racial project like affirmative action contradicted this, but as I learned more about the structure of our society, the necessity of affirmative action came to light for me. 

Until very recently, I had never truly questioned my negative experiences that came from being a minority student applying to “top” universities.  Despite being extremely well qualified when applying to college, I was still told by several fellow students that I “only got into Michigan because [I] was Mexican”, as well as, that as a woman, “applying into engineering was a good strategy to assure [I] would get into school”. Though hearing this did not at the time truly burden me because I knew my academic standing was what brought me here, it did make me question, is that what everyone else thought when I said “I’m going to Michigan”.  Would I be forever plagued by the many stigmas that follow minorities.  Would my achievements be diminished and attributed to my minority status?  It is policies such as affirmative action that perpetuate the stereotypes among minorities at higher education institutions of being “a product of Affirmative Action”.  That however is not an issue of policy, it is an issue of society and ideological work. 

Many believe that affirmative action is no longer necessary because our society no longer privileges whites over minorities.  Others claim that it is a form of reverse racism that has set up a system of discrimination against the white majority.  Another argument against affirmative action is that it violates the constitution, which guarantees equal rights for all, by giving certain groups an advantage over others.

Though I admit that I believe that these arguments are valid and I agree with all of them on some level, I must provide the counter-point to each of these.

Though I see it as true that by law, whites are no longer privileged, I believe that by the social structure of our society, they still are.  The laws of the past have created an America in which the white majority holds economic and social advantages over minorities.  For example, it is quite clear through out the country that many communities are racially segregated and with this racial segregation comes economic segregation as well.  We can look to the division between urban neighborhoods and their suburban counterparts, populated with minorities and white majorities, respectively, as an example of this segregation and the economic disparity that comes with this.  This economic disparity in turn creates differences in educational systems, employment and housing and leaves us with a country in which poverty has been racialized.  With such a disparity in economic wealth, comes a disparity in opportunity.  Wealth allows people to live in better areas of the country, and therefore go to better schools, and therefore have a great advantage when applying to universities, which then gives you an advantage in the work force.  If someone from an impoverished part of the country never receives an opportunity, such as that given to them by affirmative action, then the mobility and distribution of wealth from the white majority to all races will never occur.

I can look to my own life experiences to draw these conclusions. I was born in Mexico and moved to the United States when I was six years old, my parents only completed seventh grade before they began working on their families farms.  My oldest sister was the first person in our extended family to attend college followed by my other sister and myself.  So coming from a lower middle-class Hispanic family, I have experienced first hand the disadvantages that come from being a minority.  I grew up in a very diverse city, in New Rochelle, New York, that is composed of a population that is about one third White, one third Hispanic, and one third Black.  With such an even distribution of race, the disparity in the distribution of wealth became even more apparent.  The north end which was the wealthiest part of New Rochelle was by a large majority White, while the mid to southern parts of the city which were the least wealthy were Black and Hispanic.  As a student, what stood out to me most was my honors and AP classes, which were nearly comprised of all white students.  So were these White students inherently more intelligent than their Black and Hispanic counterparts?  I didn’t think so.  I, living in the middle part of New Rochelle, went to Albert Leonard, the middle school on the north side of New Rochelle, which to anyone in New Rochelle could be instantly identified as the middle school with better teachers, programs and funding.  The students from Albert Leonard were the ones who populated advanced placement classes.  These were also the same students who I competed against when applying to the best universities.  So were Hispanic and Black students less intelligent?  No, I believe they simply did not have the opportunities that would encourage their success.  They lived in the less wealthy part of town, and went to worse elementary and middle schools, so that by high school they were already at a disadvantage when class placement was decided.  I see it as a form of institutionalized racism, where in my hometown like many if not most across America, minorities find themselves economically disadvantaged, it is this lack of wealth, which diminishes opportunity and inhibits social and economic mobility.

So what does affirmative action do to fix this?  It gives minorities an opportunity to amend the disadvantages they encountered because of a society that is structured in a way that places them at the bottom of the socio-economic “totem-pole”.

As for the claim that affirmative action is a form of reversed racism I can not agree with using the term racism to describe the policies of affirmative action, because I see these policies as a way of trying to help a group of people as opposed to hurting another.

It is because of the need to help minorities rise that I am a proponent of affirmative action.  I do hope that some day affirmative action is irrelevant, but that will require allowing this policy to proceed and evolve until we have achieved proportional representation in education and in the work force.  It is not until that goal is reached that America can truly say that it is a racial democracy that provides equal opportunity for all.

So with all this in mind, where do you stand on affirmative action? 

Yanet Zepeda

WHAT NOW? : The Ban on Affirmative Action in Public Universities

We all know that affirmative action has, since its establishment, generated great controversy by establishing a selection process in the public sector that gives preferential treatment to minorities based on gender, race, and origin.  Whether you support affirmative action or oppose, the effects it had had on the representation of minorities in both universities and the workforce is undeniable.  Affirmative action is constantly under fire by opponents of the program who believe it is unconstitutional and discriminatory.  States such as Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas and Washington, have over time, legally overturned affirmative action by placing a ban on its practice.  My question is, what are the ramifications of this decision.  What are the results in states like California, that have maintained this ban for over a decade, and using this as a model, what can expect to see in newly affirmative action-free states like Arizona?

It was during the Johnson era in the 1960’s that affirmative action first came into practice to assure that minority groups were not discriminated against due to their gender, race, or national origin.  Affirmative action not only provided equal opportunity for all, but also over time encouraged the growth of diversity.

Affirmative action is defined in legal practice as the “process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority”.  In theory, affirmative action is being used to both rectify the discrimination of the past which created a socio-economical structure that disadvantages minorities and to increase the socio-economical mobility of these minorities.

However, many states have began moving towards a post affirmative action era, deeming affirmative action a discriminatory practice that is no longer necessary.  So what are the effects of these bans?

The California Case:

In California we have seen that the results of affirmative action have not been a significant decrease in the representation of Black and Hispanic students, rather we see a significant increase in the Admission and enrollment of Asian-American students.  What makes this most surprising, is that Asian-American students make up to 40 percent of admitted freshman in the UC system, they make up under 15 percent of the California high school graduate population.  The statistics for freshman admitted into the University of California are for all schools in the UC system, but what about selectivity.  “Affirmative Action Bans and College Graduation Rates” , a study by Peter Hinrichs of Georgetown University,  showed that Schools such as Berkley and UCLA, the most competitive schools in the UC system, had the greatest decrease in Black and Hispanic students.  So, when we ban affirmative action, are minorities trickling down to less selective schools?

Is this result seen in California a trend?  It could be argued that removing affirmative action resulted in the distribution of the allotted minority spots to the group with the highest high school graduating GPA’s and SAT scores in California, Asian Americans.  However, taking into account that California has the highest Asian population in the United States, at 5.6 million, drawn from a total population of 17.3 million countrywide, this result could simply be attributed to California’s large and continuously growing Asian population.

But what about other states?

States such as Texas, have not shown a significant decrease in the enrollment of minority groups in public institutions, however, that is if we are only examining the hard numbers of admissions and enrollment.  We have to take into account the rapidly growing Hispanic population in Texas, and there after acknowledge that the increase in the number of Hispanic students in the Texas public university system is not representative of the increase of Hispanic persons in Texas’s population.

So we have seen the effects of the ban off affirmative action in states such as California and Texas, who have upheld their ban for nearly two decades.  But what about long term effects?  If the end of affirmative action is in the near future, what does this mean for our distant future?  We can see the immediate results in universities, but how will this affect the work force?  Fifty years from now, will we have reached the goal of proportional representation, or would the end to affirmative action mean a future that looks more like our past?

Yanet Zepeda

Is this the Real World?

Minorities in reality television shows are either portrayed as someone perpetuating the stereotype or they debunk these notions by being perceived as a unique and cultured. It seems that more and more reality shows are made with the focus being to entertain the audience, and this may come as a sacrifice for the cast because it is up to the producer to decide how they want them to be perceived. There have been many occasions on television when African Americans are viewed as being loud, aggressive, and demanding but other times it seems that the producers focus more on the issue of race to promote a better understanding for the audience. One of the most popular reality shows is MTV’s The Real World and one of the most watched seasons was season 10: back to New York, which aired in 2001.

In this season the cast of seven strangers was one that was very diverse. It consisted of three people of mixed heritage, one African American, and two males and one female of Caucasian descent.  While in New York many of the cast members dealt with many dramatic moments including on screen romances, disagreements at their job at Arista records, and the issues that arose about race including interracial dating and the individual choices that each person made. Mike, a white male born in Parma, Ohio grew up in a predominately white middle class neighborhood and he was never really exposed to different races or ethnicities. His views about minorities were very stereotypical but this may have steamed from the portrayal of minorities in the media and influences from the people around him. His roommates saw his ignorance and some became angry while others took this opportunity to educate and try to change his perception. As the season went on, he grew a very strong bond with his cast mates and it seemed that his views changed and he no longer made these preconceived stereotypical notions about minorities; instead, he saw them in a different light.

During this season the topic of race was something that was constantly at the forefront and the center of this issue was Malik Cooper, a native to Berkley, California who is of mixed race with his mother being white and his father being African American. It seemed that because he is mixed his roommates automatically applied the one-drop rule and perceived him as being African American.  A couple of his roommates were critical of his actions because he dates white women but he is very knowledgeable and active when it comes to the black community. They were using these markers of authenticity to decide where exactly he belonged when it came to his race. He wore an Afro that connoted the idea of black power and he was interested in pursing music within the hip-hop genre, which also credited his authenticity. His roommates are constantly questioning his genuineness as a black man because his life goes beyond those stereotypical roles. He was one of the first of his friends and family to attend college and it was at the prestigious University of California Berkley, which discredited the views of his white roommate Mike who believed that blacks weren’t intelligent. Many of his roommates tried to associate his life with being an “authentic” black man but he is portrayed as being a unique person of mixed race who is intelligent and one that upholds his black and white culture.

-Danielle Hicks 

Our Family Wedding: Culture Emergence of Interracial Marriages

What happens when a Latina woman and an African American man get engaged for marriage? Not your usual couple, but does that make it morally wrong? Maybe you don’t see it as a big deal until it is your son/daughter or brother/sister who brings home a person of a different race as the love of their life and their future husband or wife. How easy would it be for you to accept that? The movie “Our Family Wedding” (2010) helps us to answer these questions while showing different perspectives on interracial marriages. The African American family of Marcus Boyd and the Hispanic family of Lucia Ramirez are forced to join together in this romantic comedy film when the two announce their plans for marriage.  This movie clearly presents apprehensions on interracial marriages and cultural clashes in the beginning, but it also shows it in a different light in the end where the black/Mexican marriage and is respected and accepted. Stereotypes and unique cultural aspects of Mexicans and African Americans are presented to show extremities of both cultures. After getting to know one another very well, both the wedding and the families eventually become more diverse.

Dropping the Bomb

Neither families of Marcus or Lucia expected the shocking news of their engagement. Their initial reaction was surprised, confused, and nearly speechless. When introducing her new black fiancée to her traditional grandmother, Lucia’s abuelita fainted instantly at the unbelievable news she had received. The parents, too, were confused at their decision and unreceptive of accepting each other’s families. The fathers of the intercultural couple, Brad and Miguel, especially clashed in arguments, disagreements, disrespect, and ignorance that led to racist views. When first meeting each other, they automatically assumed the worse because they were unfamiliar with their cultures and because they saw one another as a threat to themselves. Differences of culture such as food, language, dress, traditions, dances, and more created boundaries for the families to understand the other family’s culture. But, because of the bond between Lucia and Marcus the families are given the opportunity to become aware of a different culture. As the movie moves forward and they learn more about each other, the ignorance dilutes and a greater acceptance evolves.

Breaking Down Barriers

As commonly stated, when you marry someone, you marry their entire family. This is exactly what happened in the film despite their families’ differences. One way of combining the African American and Hispanic culture was through the wedding, which implemented traditions of both cultures from the big and tasteful wedding cake to the Mariachi band singing “Soon As I Get Home” and to the electric slide on the dance floor. The families were able to come together to create a one of a kind wedding by not exactly breaking tradition, but adding to it and making it more diverse. What’s better than an African American wedding or a Latina wedding? Perhaps both. Through this movie we can see how interracial and intercultural marriages break racial barriers by creating a greater understanding of an unfamiliar race.

-Brianna Allen

Looking Inward: Changing Ourselves to Change the World

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011, I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Cornel West speak. He was the guest speaker at the Making Race Heard Summit Kickoff event. This event was dedicated to enabling people of all colors to finally be able to talk about race and have honest conversations and not sugar coat race and racism. He presented many interesting points about the history of racism, its present state, and even the Occupy Movement. It was very enjoyable to hear him speak.

During his speech he said something that resonated with me. He said, “… you’re talking about a history of white supremacy that has convinced people of color that they’re less beautiful, less intelligent, and less human. And they believed it”(The Michigan Daily, Wednesday, November 30, 2011). He spoke of how throughout the history and in the media, people of color have been told that they are inferior, either overtly (slavery) or covertly (television media). He stated that the feeling of being unsafe, unprotected and hated for who I am is a constant notion in the minorities’ mind. In my opinion this has only lead minorities to begin to internalize this racism and oppression.  Minorities have been told for centuries that they are inferior, and therefore have no choice but to believe it.  Many minorities have a hatred for themselves that causes them to either hurt their brothers and sisters or disdain everything about their own physical features.

Dr. West spoke of how Jim Crow never went anywhere and that we are living in the era of Jim Crow Jr. He stated that America is still highly segregated; the difference is that law does not regulate it today.  Many aspects of our life are still highly segregated. Many people only interact with those that look and act like them. People feel that it is too hard to communicate with those outside their circle. This, however, is human nature. Wanting to be with one’s own kind is something everyone experiences. It is when we begin to say that this is why the races should be separate that this becomes a problem.  This only furthers one’s internalized racism and oppression when people like them do not surround them. When there is a mixed group, both people of color and non-color become awkward and do not necessarily know how to interact with each other. This only enhances the awareness minorities have about themselves. They begin to magnify their differences and begin to feel inferior compared to the white members of the group. I believe that in order to fix these issues for both white and non-white people, we must have integration at an early age. We have to teach our children about the differences amongst people and that everyone has characteristics that make them unique. Children are very malleable and if we can teach them at an early age that racism and prejudices are wrong, this will prevent many future issues. This will allow whites the comfort ability to talk to people of color and give people of color the ability to talk to whites and not feel as if their every move is being watched and judged. A key component to reducing the internalized racism is to desegregate our lives.  This allows minorities to know that they are being judged as an individual and not a member of a group.

Dr. West also stated that to fix racism we must look internally at our actions and behaviors. I would like to take this a step further.  In order for minorities as a group to get over their internalized racism and oppression they must look internally. People of color have to affirm that they are beautiful, intelligent, and human, because if they do not, who will?  Minorities need to stop the hatred and down cutting of each other, because if we learn to accept ourselves the world will begin to accept us. If we can combat our internalized oppression with uniformity and solidarity, maybe the world can accomplish more of its diversity goals.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. West’s speech. It opened my eyes to many ideas about race that I had never considered before. The most profound thing he said was that racism starts with ourselves, and we cannot change the world if we have not changed ourselves. Changing ourselves involves a lot in general, but if we can start to reaffirm our own beauty, intelligence, and humanity, and raise our SELF-esteem the world will stop and take note.

-Brandie Smith